The goal of this blog is to create a list of super facts. Important facts that are true with very high certainty and yet surprising, misunderstood, or disputed by many. This blog aims to be challenging, educational, and fun, without it being clickbait. I determine veracity using evidence, data from reputable sources and longstanding scientific consensus. Prepare to be challenged (I am). Intentionally seek the truth not confirmation of your belief.
Superfact 144: Modern Physics including Quantum Physics and Relativity is fundamentally different from Classical Physics. Even if you include Relativity in Classical Physics, which is often done, it is still fundamentally different from “Classic Classical Physics”.
Electrons (and other particles) don’t have specific positions. They are probability clouds. This is an illustration of the helium atom, depicting the nucleus (pink) and the electron cloud distribution (black). The black bar is one angstrom (10−10 m or 100 pm). The nucleus is 0.01pm. User: Yzmo, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Classical physics and modern physics represent two major phases in our understanding of how the universe works. Classical physics includes fields such as classical mechanics, electromagnetism, optics, and thermodynamics. Modern physics include relativity and quantum mechanics. However, relativity is often said to be classical physics as well as modern physics.
In classical physics time and space are independent of the observers, objects can have exact positions and velocities, and if you measure them precisely you can make exact predictions. Furthermore, energy and matter are continuous. In relativity time and space are relative, and there is no universal now. The order of events depends on the observer and energy and mass are interchangeable. In quantum physics particles do not have a specific positions or velocities, they behave as both particles and waves, and energy is quantized. In quantum physics you have probabilities instead of certainties. The electrons (and other particles) in atoms are described as probability clouds (see picture above). Classical physics and modern physics are very different.
Amy is traveling at a high speed to the left compared to two lamps A and B. Alan is standing still compared to the lamps. Adam is traveling at a high speed to the right compared to two lamps A and B. Alan turns on the lamps at the same time. After considering the travel time of the light she sees, Amy concludes that lamp B turned on first. After considering the travel time of the light he sees, Adam concludes that lamp A turned on first. I should add this non-simultaneity can only happen if the lamps are separated by a distance.
A famous but simple formula from quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that you cannot both know the exact position and momentum (that is mass times velocity) of a particle. Another version of it states that you cannot both know the exact energy and the time interval to measure it. Basically, it is impossible to know a particle’s quantities exactly. They don’t even exist other than as probabilities.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2380436193 by Sasha701
The difference between how things work in classical physics and in modern physics is very large. The language and philosophy of classical physics and modern physics is not even the same. I believe that the fact that there is such a large and distinct difference between the two phases of physics comes as a big surprise to those who were unaware of it. Since this fact is important and potentially surprising, perhaps mind-blowing, it is a super fact in my opinion.
It is easy to think that modern physics is philosophical, mysterious, esoteric, and impractical. It is not. Pretty much all of the electronics you have ever used exist because of modern physics. Modern physics is also essential for lasers, MRI and PET scans, modern medicine, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, GPS, atomic clocks, solar power, small-scale nanotechnology, and a large amount of new materials. That might be a super fact all in itself.
Special Relativity
Relativity comes in two flavors, special relativity and general relativity both pioneered by the physicist Albert Einstein. Special relativity states that the speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant c = 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their speed and the direction in which they are going. It is always c = 299,792,458 meters per second. If you try to catch up to a light beam and try to travel close to the speed of the light beam, you will not be able to catch up. The speed of the light beam will still be c = 299,792,458 meters per second compared to you no matter how fast you go. In fact, anything without (rest) mass will travel at exactly this speed compared to everything else, whilst nothing else could ever reach or exceed this speed.
Four rockets, A, B, C, and D, are traveling along a light (laser) beam. No matter how fast they travel along the light beam, the light beam will always travel c = 299,792,458 meters per second faster than they do. I generated this picture with the help of ChatGPT.
Mass is energy and vice versa, a direct result of the way time and space are related. Stock Photo ID: 2163111377 by Aree_SIf you measure the space coordinates in meters and the time in seconds you must adjust the units to match by inserting the speed of light in vacuum c = 299,792,458. The three forms of the space interval now have the constant c attached to the time coordinate.
General Relativity
In General Relativity gravity is not viewed as a force over distance. Mass / energy is distorting the local space-time creating the effects of gravity. Even though the end result is very similar to Newton’s theory of gravity, the General Theory of Relativity is much more accurate. The General Theory of Relativity also predicts that clocks will be running slower in gravitational fields. It predicts gravity waves, and the strange behavior of black holes, and it is necessary for GPS to work.
Earth is a mass that distorts space-time resulting in what we call gravity.3D illustration of giant Black hole in deep space. High quality digital space art in 5K – realistic visualization. Stock Illustration ID: 2476711459 by Vadim Sadovski.
Quantum Physics
As mentioned, in quantum physics, particles do not have specific positions or velocities. See the Heisenberg uncertainty principle above. In quantum physics you have probabilities instead of certainties, and energy is quantized. The electrons (and other particles) in atoms are described as probability clouds. Particles behave as both particles and waves, the so called wave particle duality. Particles exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties depending on the type of measurement. An example is the famous double slit experiment.
If you shoot electrons, or any particle, through a double slit (panel with two slits) they will show up on the detector panel behind the first panel as if they were a wave. There will be interference patterns (multiple bands), the same as you would get from light waves or water waves. You will even get the interference pattern if you shoot the electrons one by one. However, if you try to detect the individual electrons to see which slit they went through you will get just two bands as if the electrons were bullets going through the slits. In other words, if you look at them, they won’t do the beautiful interference pattern anymore, as if they are saying, “if you look at me, I won’t do it”.
Photons or matter (like electrons) produce an interference pattern with multiple bands when two slits are used. Original: NekoJaNekoJa Vector: Johannes Kalliauer, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
One amazing discovery was that of anti-particles / anti-matter. Anti-matter was predicted in 1928 by the physicist Paul Dirac when he combined quantum mechanics with Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity. A few years later (1932) the anti-particle of the electron, called the positron was discovered. Since then, many anti-particles have been found. I can add that Matter and anti-matter annihilate upon contact releasing enormous amounts of energy.
Annihilation of a positron (at the top left) and an electron (bottom left) with the release of energy and gamma quanta Shutterstock asset id: 2200151693 by Sergey Merkulov
Conclusion
Going from classical physics to modern physics represented a huge quantum leap forward (pun intended) both with respect to our understanding of the Universe and the technological revolution this shift (paradigm shift) caused.
Super fact 131 : There is no absolute reference point. All motion is relative. Since everything is in motion compared to something else, that means that everything is in motion. In addition, all material objects consist of particles that are in motion, and all objects with mass move through time.
I previously made a post on this topic called “Everything is in Motion – Stream of Consciousness”. For a Stream of Consciousness post you are supposed to write whatever comes to mind without editing, except for typos. Stream of Consciousness is a fun concept. However, it is not fit for a super fact post because a super fact post requires fact checking and linking to reputable sources and it needs to be well organized and well explained, and all that is editing. After writing Everything is in Motion – Stream of Consciousness I realized that “Everything is in Motion” is a super fact. It is an important observation and a fact that is far from obvious. With this post I am rewriting “Everything is in Motion – Stream of Consciousness” into a super-fact I call “Everything is in Motion”.
All Motion is Relative
All motion is relative and everything moves in comparison to something else. You may be sitting in your chair completely still thinking that you are not moving but you are. Earth rotates around its axis at 1,040 miles per hour at the equator, and at 733 miles per hour at latitude 45 degrees. Latitude 45 degrees goes through New York and other northern States, as well as Europe. Sitting at the geographic north Pole won’t help you either because Earth is also wobbling and it is rotating around the sun at roughly 67,000 miles per hour or 107,000 kilometers per hour.
Man thinking he is sitting still drawn with the help of ChatGPT
The picture below shows Earth’s three main orbital cycles. I used this picture in another context for super-fact #122 “Orbital Cycles are not the Cause of the current Global Warming”. In that context I wanted to point out that Earth’s orbital cycles are too slow (100,000 years, 41,000 years, and 26,000 years) to explain the sudden rapid rise in global temperatures that we are witnessing now. The orbital cycles are also currently slowly cooling Earth, not warming it. However, in this context I am using the picture for a different purpose, and that is to point out that even if you sit at the north pole (or anywhere else on Earth) you will be moving.
In addition, the sun is rotating around the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way at 514,000 to 560,000 miles per hour or 792,000 to 828,000 kilometer per hour, and our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other at the speed of 110 kilometers per second, which is 396,000 kilometers per hour, or 246,000 miles per hour. Whether it is the Andromeda galaxy that is approaching us or our galaxy that is approaching the Andromeda galaxy is just a point of view. We are also moving at millions and billions of miles of hour compared to some other galaxies.
As mentioned, motion is not absolute. It is always relative to something else. The universe has no center, no ether to compare with, there is no absolute reference point. It is not possible to declare anything as truly standing still. Understanding this is the first step towards understanding the theories of relativity. According to the theories of relativity the speed of light, or the speed of light in vacuum if you will, is a universal constant c = 299,792,458. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their speed and the direction in which they are going. In other words, you are moving at the speed of c = 299,792,458 compared to all light.
Four rockets, A, B, C, and D, are traveling along a light (laser) beam. No matter how fast they travel along the light beam, the light beam will always travel c = 299,792,458 meters per second faster than they do. I generated this picture with the help of ChatGPT.
In addition, c = 299,792,458 is not a speed in a regular sense, but a conversion factor between space and time. All particles/objects without mass (light particles called photons, gluons and gravity waves) must always travel at this speed, whilst all objects that have mass can only travel slower than c = 299,792,458 (compared to other objects with mass).
Mass is energy and vice versa, a direct result of the way time and space are related. Stock Photo ID: 2163111377 by Aree_S
You could say that compared to the reference frame of my choosing, which happens to be the chair I am sitting in, I am sitting still. I am not sure that would be fair but according to the theories of relativity you are also moving through time at the speed of c = 299,792,458. Well, that is assuming you have mass. For mass-less particles, like photons, time does not exist. Anyway, the fact that you are always moving kind sneaks in, no matter what you try.
Billions of photons coming into the eye. For them time does not exist. Shutterstock asset id: 2629068895 by muratart.
You could raise a couple of objections to some of the claims in the last paragraphs. Very far away, beyond the limit of the visible Universe, galaxies can move away from us faster than the speed of light. However, they are not moving faster than the speed of light compared to the space where they are. What is going on is that space and time are stretching fast due to the expansion of the Universe.
Another objection might be that light can move slower than c = 299,792,458 through transparent materials such as glass and water. So, how can the claim that all massless particles must always move at exactly the speed of light in vacuum be true? The answer to that is that the light particles (photons) in those materials are being absorbed and re-emitted as new photons by the atoms. However, in between the atoms the photons move exactly at the speed c = 299,792,458, or more correctly at the time-space conversion factor c = 299,792,458.
From ground state to excited state, absorption and emission of a photon in an atom. Shutterstock asset id: 2180385419 by rktz.
All Matter Consist of Molecules and Atoms that move
But wait, we are not done. Another fact is that everything is made of atoms and molecules that are never completely still. Temperature is a measure of their average kinetic energy (energy of motion). Even at the temperature absolute zero molecules and atoms are still moving. Yes, even at the lowest possible temperature they are still moving. It is impossible for atoms and molecules to stand completely still, just like children.
Thermal vibration of a segment of a protein’s alpha helix. Its amplitude increases with temperature. User:Greg_L on English wikipedia, uploaded to commons by User:Frokor, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons.
Superfact 116: Time and space do not exist for light particles (called photons) and not for other particles without mass either. All massless particles travel at the speed c = 299,792,458 meters per second compared to all other objects regardless of how fast those other objects are moving. Objects / particles that have mass will always travel slower than c = 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light, c, is not really a speed. It is a conversion factor between space and time. It is therefore a universal constant.
Billions of photons coming into the eye. Shutterstock asset id: 2629068895 by muratart.
Light does not travel through a medium, like a sound wave, or a water wave does. There is no medium for light to travel in. Photons are massless, which means that an extremely tiny force, an infinitesimal smallest possible force, could send a photon off at infinite speed. There is no mass to hold the photon back.
However, the conversion factor between space and time c = 299,792,458 meters per second will prevent that and the photon will travel at this “speed”. Since c is a conversion factor, a physical constant describing time and space, this is not motion, or movement, in a normal sense. Space and time won’t allow any physical event to have any effect faster, and no information of any kind can travel faster than c = 299,792,458 meters per second.
This means that from the photon’s perspective there will be no time at all. A photon, or a light beam, will travel from Earth to a distant galaxy a billion light years away in an instant. It will not take a billion years. It will not take one year. It will not take one second. It will not take one microsecond. It will not take a nanosecond, or a picosecond, or a trillionth of a picosecond. It will take zero seconds. The Big Bang and the end of the Universe (if there is one) happen at the same exact moment to a photon. Time does not exist for a photon (or a gluon, or any other mass-less particle).
This is a mind-blowing fact, and it is true and important to our understanding of the Universe. Therefore, I consider it a super fact.
What does the Speed of Light Being a Universal Constant Mean ?
Four rockets, A, B, C, and D, are traveling along a light (laser) beam. No matter how fast they travel along the light beam, the light beam will always travel c = 299,792,458 meters per second faster than they do. I generated this picture with the help of ChatGPT.
The first thing to acknowledge about the speed of light (in vacuum) is that it is a universal constant as explained in my post “The Speed of Light in Vacuum Is a Universal Constant”. However, I am explaining this fact slightly differently in the next few paragraphs with the help of the picture above.
In the picture above we are emitting a light beam from our spaceship using our super laser. There are also four rockets that travel along the light beam. The rocket on the lower right (rocket A) travel at 1% of the speed of light v = 2,997,924.5 meters per second (or 2,998 miles per second). That is extremely fast, but much slower than light. You would think that the light beam would travel a little bit slower compared to this rocket at the relative speed c – v = 299,792,458 – 2,997,924.5 = 296,794,533.5 meters per second. But it doesn’t. The light beam is still speeding ahead of rocket A at exactly c = 299,792,458 meters per second.
What happens if you compare the beam with the rocket in the lower left (rocket B)? That rocket travels at 10% the speed of the light beam. Shouldn’t the light beam move 10% slower compared to that rocket? No, the light beam speeds ahead at exactly c = 299,792,458 meters per second compared to rocket B, once again.
Now take rocket C in the upper right corner. It also travels along the light beam but at half the speed of light. Shouldn’t the light beam travel at half of the speed of light compared to rocket C? No, it will stubbornly travel at exactly c = 299,792,458 meters per second compared to rocket C. Not less and not more.
The same is true for the rocket in the upper left, rocket D. It travels at 99.99% of the light speed compared to us in the spaceship, and yet the light beam will stubbornly travel at exactly c = 299,792,458 meters per second compared to rocket D. Not less and not more.
The universal speed c = 299,792,458 meters per second is not so much about light. As mentioned, it is a conversion factor between space and time. You take this conversion factor with you everywhere you go and regardless of how fast you move. That’s the way time and space works.
The fact that the speed of light is a universal constant that is exactly the same for all observers, no matter how fast they move, should tell you that it is not a speed in a normal sense. It is not really a “speed” at all. As mentioned, it is a conversion factor between space and time. Light isn’t really travelling super-fast. It is just conforming to the geometric reality of time and space, and to us it looks like it is travelling at the speed c = 299,792,458 meters per second.
The Space-Time Interval for Light is Zero
I mentioned that from the photons perspective time does not exist but that from our perspective light travel through space or seem to travel through space and that takes time. However, for us space and time are separate things. If you combine them and measure space-time intervals instead you get a more complete picture. In 3D space you get the distance between two points by adding the differences between the coordinates using Pythagoras theorem, s^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}. (x, y, and z, are differences in the coordinates) As long as you are consistent with the units you will always get the same distance regardless of position and orientation of your coordinate system. You can read more here.
If you add time to Pythagoras theorem you will get the space-time interval, which interestingly enough is the same for all observers. There is no time dilation or length contraction in the interval. s^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}+(it)^{2} As you might suspect, intervals involving light travelling from one event to another will always be zero for all observers, and not just from the photons perspective. And again, the same applies to all massless particles. Below are the Pythagoras formulas for different versions of the interval. In the top picture it is assumed that the conversion factor c = 299,792,458 meters per second has already been baked into to the time variable and in the bottom it has not. This is not any stranger than converting feet to meters.
The three formulas for the spacetime interval above all assume that the unit used for time is the time it takes light in vacuum to travel the distance unit used. If that is meters, it would be the time it takes light to travel one meter. The top formula is the Euclidian form of spacetime. It contains only the ‘+’ operator at the expense of adding the imaginary number (square root of -1) in front of the time coordinate. The second form is typically used with time like intervals and considered the standard form. The third form is used when the distance between two events is larger than the time distance, or distance like intervals.If you measure the space coordinates in meters and the time in seconds you must adjust the units to match by inserting the speed of light in vacuum c = 299,792,458. The three forms of the space interval now have the constant c attached to the time coordinate.
What about the speed of light in water ?
It is well known that the speed of light in transparent materials such as water and glass is slower than the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light it water is about 75% of the speed in vacuum and about 70% or less in glass (depending of the type of glass) compared to the speed in vacuum. In some materials the speed of light can be much less than that. This seems to violate what I said above about the speed of light always moving at c = 299,792,458 meters per second for all observers regardless of their speed.
What is going on is that when light moves through matter it is being absorbed and emitted as it “travels” between the atoms in the material, and this absorption and emittance process takes time. This time is extremely short but long enough to be measurable. As the photons move in between the atoms they travel at the “speed” c = 299,792,458 meters per second, the time to space conversion factor I’ve been talking about. See the illustration below.
From ground state to excited state, absorption and emission of a photon in an atom. Shutterstock asset id: 2180385419 by rktz.
More about the mass of a Photon
I’ve said photons have no mass. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, time does not pass (or effectively “exist”) from the perspective of a massless particle. However, this is the intrinsic mass or so called proper mass or invariant mass. It is the mass of an object as measured by an observer who is completely at rest relative to it. This intrinsic mass is the mass that a photon does not have.
The mass of an electron is 511 Kilo Electron Volts, which is 0.0000000000000000000000000009109 grams. That is the intrinsic mass of the electron. If an electron is sped up to close the speed of light its mass increases and goes toward infinity. If its speed is very close to the speed of light its mass could be much bigger than that of the entire Universe. That’s because as you are increasing the speed of the electron, you are increasing its kinetic energy and as you increase the total energy of the electron you also increase its total mass according to E = mc2.
As the electron’s speed approaches the speed of light the kinetic energy goes toward infinity. That is one reason why it is impossible to travel at exactly the speed of light for anything but massless particles. Infinite energy and infinite mass are not realistic. We, the objects that have mass, can move closer and closer to light speed but never get there.
However, the intrinsic mass for photons is zero and therefore the photon is travelling at exactly the speed of light, c = 299,792,458 meters per second. E = mc2 still applies to light but the mass is not the intrinsic mass, which is zero, but the total mass, and the total mass can pretty much take on any number.
What about Warp Drives ?
So, nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, and nothing can exceed it. What about the warp drive in Star Trek? As I said, the speed of light is not really a speed but the conversion factor between time and space. It is a geometric fact of space-time. That is a pretty difficult reality to get around, just like it is pretty difficult to push Earth out of its orbit by pushing on the floor. However, there is a way to cheat and that is to stretch space-time itself. This is theoretically possible, but it requires colossal amounts of mass-energy and enormous amounts of negative energy. We don’t even know if negative energy exists on a macroscopic scale.
So, no one knows if a warp drive is possible, and if it isn’t, then we are stuck moving slower than the speed of light, which would make interstellar travel very difficult and inconvenient.
Richard Feyman’s Lecture on Why Light Is NOT Moving Through Space?
The YouTube video below is very long, 48 minutes. However, Richard Feyman, Nobel prize winner in physics, has a knack for explaining extremely abstract concepts so that they are easy to understand. If you are very interested in this topic and have some extra time, this is a fascinating lecture. He certainly explains this topic better than I can.
The Greatest Intellectual Achievement of the human race is arguably the Standard Model of Elementary Particles. The Standard Model consists of Special Relativity, Quantum Physics, Noether’s theorem and gauge theories, Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics, and a framework for all elementary particles, and more. It is a towering achievement of physics that was created by thousands of geniuses over a period of several decades. It is the theory of almost everything.
Despite that fact it is not getting a lot of respect. Everyone is just trying to find something wrong with it. The reason is that as soon as it was created people realized that something was wrong with it. It could not be reconciled with General Relativity. Something was missing. So, finding out what is wrong with it or what is missing has been a top priority for physics for several decades. The book “The Theory of Almost Everything” by Robert Oerter is a very interesting book covering the standard model, its components, its history, and what could be missing. It contains a few formulas but other than that it is mostly readable to laymen.
Book Formats for The Theory of Almost Everything
The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics by Robert Oerter comes in three formats. I bought the hardback format.
Hardcover – Pi Press (July 22, 2005), ISBN-10 : 0132366789, ISBN-13 : 978-0132366786, 336 pages, item weight : 1.2 pounds, dimensions : 6.37 x 1.11 x 9.3 inches, it costs $35.08 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Paperback – Penguin Publishing Group (September 26, 2006), ISBN-10 : 0452287863, ISBN-13 : 978-0452287860, 336 pages, item weight : 10.8 ounces, dimensions : 5.51 x 0.81 x 8.34 inches, it costs $16.99 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Kindle – Publisher : Plume (September 26, 2006), ASIN : B002LLCHV6, ISBN-13 : 978-1101126745, 348 pages, it costs $6.99 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics by Robert Oerter. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the hardcover version of the book.
Amazon’s Description of The Theory of Almost Everything
There are two scientific theories that, taken together, explain the entire universe. The first, which describes the force of gravity, is widely known: Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. But the theory that explains everything else—the Standard Model of Elementary Particles—is virtually unknown among the general public.
In The Theory of Almost Everything, Robert Oerter shows how what were once thought to be separate forces of nature were combined into a single theory by some of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century. Rich with accessible analogies and lucid prose, The Theory of Almost Everything celebrates a heretofore unsung achievement in human knowledge—and reveals the sublime structure that underlies the world as we know it.
Below is my full length giant review of The Theory of Almost Everything. Unless you are really interested, I suggest you read the somewhat shorter Amazon version by clicking the link above.
An introduction to the greatest intellectual achievement of the Human Race
The public has to a large extent missed the greatest scientific revolution in the history of the human race because mainstream media has largely ignored this breakthrough, despite the fact that the Nobel Prize committee has been raining Nobel Prizes over it. In the 1970’s a theory that explained, at the deepest level, nearly all of the phenomena that rule our daily lives came into existence. The theory called “The Standard Model of Elementary Particles” is a set of “Relativistic Quantum Field Theories” that explains how elementary particles behave, which elementary particles there are, and why they have the properties they have, for example, isospin, spin, charge, color charge, flavor, even mass, or mass relations in many cases.
The theory explains how all of the fundamental forces in nature work except gravity. The theory describes how the elementary particles interact; decay, how long they are expected to exist, and how they combine into other subatomic particles. The theory uses only 18 adjustable parameters to accomplish all of this.
Close up illustration of atomic particle for nuclear energy imagery. From iStock photos.
In the extension the theory thus explains how nucleons and atoms are formed and what properties the atoms will have, and how molecules will form and what properties molecules will have, their chemical reactions, and what elasticity, electric conductivity, heat conductivity, color, hardness, texture, etc. any material will possess. In the extension it explains why mass and matter exist, how the sun and the stars work, and the theory is therefore the ultimate basis of all other science. It also provides a formula, or an equation of almost everything.
Best of all it has been thoroughly verified experimentally, in fact the predictions the theory has made have been confirmed with such stunning accuracy and precision that it could be considered the most successful scientific theory ever. A theory that successfully unites all physics and basically all of human knowledge of the Universe into one single theory has never before existed.
However, “The Standard Model” does not incorporate gravity and the general theory of relativity, and cannot explain dark energy, dark matter and why neutrinos have mass. Therefore, almost as soon as the theory came into existence physicists started looking for the next theory that would finish what the “The Standard Model” did not finish.
Example of such theories are GUT theories, SO(5), SO(10), string theories (abandoned), super string theories, and M-theories. Even though those new theories are extremely interesting they have not been verified or able to predict anything. In comparison with the “Standard Model”; super string theories, grand unified theories, chaos theories, you name it, are essentially nothing, but are still better known. Hopefully this will change in the future, either because the Standard Model gets the respect it deserves, or because a more complete theory can be verified.
About the book
This book explains to the layman what the “Standard Model” is and how it came into existence. The book is by no means a perfect book. I think there are several problems with the book. However, I decided not to take off any star because there are very few books written for science interested non-physicists that explain the “Standard Model of Elementary Particles”. Dr. Oerter deserves five stars just for his decent attempt at doing so. I find Dr. Oerter to be a good writer and popularizer. I don’t think he is as good as Isaac Asimov, or Carl Sagan, but close, and he is writing on a much more complex topic then, for example, Carl Sagan did.
I studied physics as an engineering student, and I could understand most of text (but not every detail regarding everything). However, I believe anyone who is somewhat familiar with science, especially physics and math, can understand most of this book. For me more diagrams and more equations would have helped. For readers without much background in physics more and better diagrams would definitely have helped. Dr. Oerter came close to writing a good book for the layman, but the book was still lacking in certain aspects. In the remainder of the review, I will give a brief synopsis for each chapter and present my opinions and reflections on each chapter. In a sense I have written a short review for every chapter. My intent is to both tell you what the book is about and give my opinions on the different sections of the book.
Chapter 1: The first unifications
In Chapter one Oerter gives an interesting overview of the history of physics. Physics has typically been divided up into many fields. New discoveries have led to either new sub disciplines or the merging of existing sub disciplines (unifications). Nineteenth century physics was divided into many sub disciplines.
Dynamics (the laws of motion)
Thermodynamics (the laws of temperature, heat and energy)
Waves (oscillations in water, air, and solids)
Optics
Electricity
Magnetism
However, because of the atomic hypothesis, thermodynamics and wave mechanics were swallowed up by dynamics. For example, temperature and heat were now explained in terms of atomic and molecular motion. The theory of electromagnetic fields subsumed optics, electricity, and magnetism (light is an electromagnetic wave). All of physics, it seemed, could be explained in terms of particles (atoms) and fields. New discoveries would alter the picture once again and the old field theories had to be abandoned, and the laws of classical mechanics (dynamics) had to be altered.
Finally, the physicists were able to come up with a unified theory that explained almost all of physics and in the extension all of science, the standard model of elementary particles. This chapter was very basic and not difficult to understand. I think his approach to give an overview of physics was both unique and enlightening. His description of how physics and our understanding of the Universe went through periods when our knowledge expanded and gave rise to new fields and due to new discoveries, that led to a deeper understanding resulted in the merging of these fields. So, in summary more knowledge lead to more fields, then deeper understanding united them. This went back and forth a few times. Finally, we have a unified theory of almost everything, the Standard Model (if we exclude the General theory of relativity).
Chapter 2: Einstein’s relativity and Noether’s theorem
Even though the book is a Physics book, I think it is also a book on Philosophy. The way I see it Physics is in a sense both Science and Philosophy, the kind of Philosophy that can be falsified, verified and proven wrong or correct. Let me explain what I mean by telling you about Noether’s theorem. Noether’s theorem states that whenever a theory is invariant under a continuous symmetry, there will be a conserved quantity. As an example of what a continuous symmetry is, is the following: any physical experiment that is performed at a certain time will have the same result if it is performed exactly the same way a certain time later. That seemingly self-evident observation means that Energy is conserved.
Another example is any physical experiment that is performed at a certain place will have the same result if it is performed exactly the same way somewhere else. That seemingly self-evident observation means that momentum is conserved. Let me add that “exactly the same way” really means that! Gravity, other forces, differences in light, or anything else cannot be different in the second experiment. The only thing allowed to be different is the position “x” (if that is our symmetry variable). That is what a continuous symmetry means, changing just one thing, and everything stays the same.
Noether’s theorem has been the guiding principle behind the standard model, and it is used to find conservation laws where symmetries are found, and it is used to find symmetries where conservation laws are found. It is a spontaneous symmetry brake that allows the Higgs Boson to give all other particles their mass (excepting mass less particles). This is the reason that matter and everything in our Universe exists. The Higgs Boson is also called the God particle. So, Noether’s theorem is both very useful in a practical sense and deeply philosophical at the same time. In addition to Noether’s theorem the standard model is built upon the special theory of relativity and a modern formulation of quantum mechanics (Quantum field theory), QED, QCD, as well as some discoveries regarding elementary particles. I can add that Noether’s theorem was formulated by a Jewish woman, Emmily Noether, who could not get a job in academia because she was a woman. This theorem is one of those very important but mostly unknown discoveries, like the invention of paper by the Chinese Tsai Lun.
Oerter does not attempt to explain the special theory of relativity; however, he tries to give the reader an idea of what it is. The problem with his approach is that he gives the reader just enough information to enable the observant reader to come up with the apparent paradoxes within the special theory of relativity, but not enough information to help the reader to easily resolve them. He also confuses the reader by not distinguishing between rest mass and relativistic mass. The observant reader will think that he is contradicting himself. The term relativistic mass is the total mass and the total quantity of energy in a body. The rest-mass is the mass of the body when it is not moving. The formula E = mc^2 is always true, when it refers to relativistic mass, which is why we talk about an energy/mass equivalence. The other more complex formula Oerter presents refers to rest mass. There is no such thing as an energy/rest mass equivalence (except at speed 0) but that is what the reader who is not already familiar with the subject will end up believing.
Another mistake Oerter does is in regard to the fact that the speed of clocks will be measured differently in different reference frames. On page 35 last paragraph Oerter writes “Here, we have an apparent paradox: If each reference frame sees the other as slowed down, whose clock will be ahead when the passengers leave the train?” Then he implies that the paradox has to be solved by incorporating the General theory of relativity. Even though that may be how it was first solved, you can solve this form of the so called “Twin Paradox” and other similar paradoxes from within the framework of the special theory of relativity itself. So even though I enjoyed reading about Nother’s theorem and still think this chapter could use some improvement.
Chapter 3: (The End of the World as we know it) + Chapter 4: (Improbabilities)
Oerter explains Quantum Physics in a very typical manner, and he mostly avoids making it look weirder than it actually is which he should be commended for (that is not true for every author). However, there is one thing that all Physicists seem to do when they explain Quantum Physics to the layman which annoys me greatly. The matter waves (or quantum fields) in Quantum Physics are quite strange entities. The reason they are so strange is because they do not exist in a real sense, they are more correctly stated mathematical abstractions. Oerter states this clearly, which is good.
However, he then goes on to mention De Witts’ idea about multiple Universes without acknowledging that these “bizarre solutions” to various Quantum Wave conundrums are completely unnecessary. So, to some extent he is still making Quantum Physics appear weirder then it is (but I have seen worse). Well, OK, Quantum Physics is weird, but we don’t need to make it seem even weirder.
After giving a background to the special theory of relativity and Quantum Physics, Oerter continues explaining relativistic Quantum Physics including the fantastic prediction you get when you combine the special theory of relativity with Quantum Physics; that for every particle there is a twin particle with exactly the same mass, and spin, but opposite charge and isospin. These particles were called anti-particles and until they were actually found physicists tried to get rid of them from the theory. However, the combination of the special theory of relativity and Quantum Physics would lead not only to much better explanation for such things as the radiation and light spectrum and the properties of atoms, it would also lead to new discoveries. This is what is referred to as Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.
Chapter 5: The Bizarre Reality of QED
Richard Feynman came up with a new representation of relativistic quantum physics for electrons that did not use waves, called Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED). This was one of the first steps towards the standard model. Instead of viewing electrons as particles governed by waves, Feynman viewed electrons as particles guided by fields consisting of all possible paths and their probabilities. He used the two-slit experiment as a guide when formulating the equations for the probabilities of the paths for the electrons (and in the extension may other particles). When he summed up all the possible paths and compared with the old Quantum Mechanics (Wave Mechanics) he got the same answer as Quantum Mechanics in every case. In fact, his new approach was able to explain and calculate phenomena’s like the electrons spin and the fine structure constant that Quantum Mechanics (Wave Mechanics) could not explain properly, and his approach also would prove crucial for the development of Relativistic Quantum Field Theory.
So, in summary, first came Quantum Mechanics, then Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, and then QED and Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. I can add that this chapter also explains Feynman diagrams and an infinity problem that cropped up. The three infinities that cropped up corresponded to the electron’s mass, the photon’s mass, and the electron’s charge. However, the problems with these infinitives were solved using a normalization process that is also explained in this chapter. I can add that I think QED probably seems less strange to laymen then Wave Mechanics because it is easier to visualize the probabilities of possible paths as compared to waves that do not even exist, even though their “amplitude squares” represents something real. This chapter was probably one of the harder chapters to understand (for those who know nothing about QED). This chapter could really have been made better by using many more diagrams and figures. Again, I am not going to knock a star for that because the book is overall so unique and important.
Chapter 6: Feynman Particles, Schwinger Fields
Chapter 6 was a short but interesting chapter. Julian Schwinger took a different approach to QED than Feynman; he sorts of invented a new wave mechanics, in which a quantum field can be pictured as a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point in space. Even though the two approaches used different models Freeman Dyson proved in 1949 that Schwinger’s field theory point of view and Feynman’s sum-over-all-paths approach were in practice identical. However, the two approaches are useful for different things and form the basis of Quantum Field Theory. QED and Quantum Field Theory eliminate the distinction of particle and field and in a sense removed the conundrum of the particle and wave duality. In the nineteenth century light was an electromagnetic wave (well it still is) and in the old Quantum Physics it was both a wave and a particle, however, in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory it is something completely new-a quantum field, neither a particle nor a wave, but an entity with the aspects of both.
Chapter 7: Welcome to the Subatomic Zoo
In this chapter Oerter describes the history of the “strong nuclear force” and the “weak nuclear force” and the subatomic zoo that later emerged. There are four fundamental forces of nature, electromagnetism, gravity, and the “strong nuclear force” and the “weak nuclear force”. The two latter fundamental forces were not known until the 1930’s. The studies of these two new forces led to the predictions and discoveries of new elementary particles. One of these was the pion, however, when the physicists looked for this particle in the cosmic background radiation, they found an elementary particle that was similar to the pion but had the wrong mass.
After some confusion it became clear that it was not a pion but a new never foreseen particle that was named the meson. This was a problem because it was a new entity which the existing physics theories could not explain. However, it got worse. More elementary particles were discovered in the 1940’s 1950’s and the 1960’s. Our Universe turned out to be a lot stranger than people thought, and people started talking about the subatomic zoo. These newly discovered elementary would remain big mysteries until the event of the Standard Model in 1974. This chapter was pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Oerter does an excellent job in making this history interesting and entertaining to the reader and the chapter also contains some humor.
Chapter 8: The Color of Quarks
In the 1960’s physics had become ugly because of the subatomic zoo. Murray Gell-Mann and Yuval Neeman suggested a periodic table for elementary particles (like there is a periodic table for the elements). This periodic table was referred to the eightfold way. The eightfold way was also referred to as the SU(3) theory. It led to the discovery of an elementary particle that was even more fundamental than the known elementary particles, the Quark. It was soon established that there were two kinds of fundamental elementary particles: leptons and Quarks, in addition to the Bosons. Let me explain the details. There are elementary particles with whole number spin, and they are called Boson’s, and there are elementary particles with half number spin called Fermions.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle (that no two particles can occupy the same state) applies to Fermions but not to Bosons and therefore the two different types of particles behave very differently and follow different kinds of statistical rules (Bose-Einstein statistics versus Fermi-Dirac statistics). All force carriers are Boson’s while some Fermions are used to build “normal matter”. Examples of Bosons are the photon, gluons, W and Z Boson, mesons, the Higgs Boson (the God particle). The Fermions come in three families, each with four particles and their anti-particle.
The proton and neutron each consist of three quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark. Neutrons consist of two down quarks and one up quark. Both protons and neutrons have a net white charge. The yellow squiggly lines are gluons transporting color charge between the quarks. Asset id: 2333679305 by KRPD.
Electron / positron
Neutrino / anti-neutrino
Up quark / anti up quark
Down quark / anti down quark
muon / anti-muon
Mu Neutrino / anti-mu-neutrino
Charm quark / anti charm quark
Strange quark / anti strange quark
tau / anti-tau
Tau Neutrino / anti-tau-neutrino
Top quark / anti top quark
Bottom quark / anti bottom quark
The quarks can be used to build other particles, but leptons cannot. For example, a quark and an anti-quark pair form a particle called a meson (there are many kinds of mesons). A triplet of quarks is called a Baryon. An example of a baryon is the proton which consists of two up quarks and one down quark. Another example is the neutron which consists of one up quark and two down quarks. So just like electrons, protons and neutrons build atoms; the quarks build other elementary particles, for example, protons. As mentioned, the six flavors of Quarks are up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom.
However, the Quarks also have colors (well they are not real colors), red, blue and green which sort of correspond to the three kinds of charges for the strong nuclear force. Based on this new model a new Quantum Field Theory called Quantum-Chromodynamics (QCD) was created which together with QED would form the basis of “The Standard Model of Elementary Particles”. This was also a very straight forward chapter that was both interesting and not very difficult to understand. Again, Oerter makes the story interesting and captivating. This is perhaps the most interesting chapter in the book.
To learn more about Protons, Neutrons, Quarks, Gluons, Color Charges, and Quantum Chromodynamics you can watch this 10 minute video below.
Chapter 9: The Weakest Link
Despite the eightfold way, the Quarks, QED and QCD, all was still not well. The Weak Nuclear force was still not fully understood. Martinus Veltman, Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam, and Sheldon Glashow were the people chiefly responsible for developing a theory for the weak nuclear force. It involved W+, W- and Z0 Bosons and something called spontaneous symmetry breaking.
These theories in turn led to something called the Higgs field and the so called Higgs particle or Higgs Boson (named after Peter Higgs who first introduced the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking in elementary particle theory). The Higgs particle provided the physics community with a very nice surprise. The Higgs particle gives electrons (and other leptons) and the Quarks their mass. Unexpectedly we thus got an explanation as to why many elementary particles have mass and therefore why matter exists. This is why the Higgs Boson is often referred to as the God particle. It just showed up because of the theories explaining the weak force and turned out to be what created our Universe by giving the elementary particles their mass.
There was just one problem. The Higgs Boson had not yet been found when this book was written. Once the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) came online it became possible to find the Higgs Boson. This final touch to the Standard Model was the one that was the most difficult to grasp. I had a hard time understanding what spontaneous symmetry break really was, and the Mexican hat potential, etc. I think that Oerter needs to look over this chapter and find a different approach to explaining spontaneous symmetry break. I think that Oerter actually sorts of “gave up” at this point. This topic is too abstract for the layman so instead of making a good effort explaining spontaneous symmetry.
Collision of Particles in the Abstract Collider. From iStock photos.
Chapter 10: The Standard Model at Last
The standard model is built from relativistic quantum field theory, specifically QED and QCD. In chapter 9 QED was incorporated into electroweak theory which led to the Higgs Boson etc. QED is interwoven together with QCD to create a single theory whose essential elements can be written in a single equation.
Yes, that is right; an equation of everything, or almost everything. This equation is stated on 207 in this chapter. The equation over all equations that there ever was. You should buy this book just to look at it.
The Langrangian function that summarizes all of the propagators and interactions in the standard model.
The equation of everything is not as complicated as you may think. It is a Lagrangian function that summarizes all propagators and interactions, and it contains 18 adjustable numerical parameters. I admit that I don’t understand the equation fully, but Oerter explains the parameters and as mentioned it is just a big Lagrange function. As Oerter states “this equation is the simplicity at the bottom of it all, the ultimate source of all complex behavior that we see in the physical world; atoms, molecules, solids, liquids, gases, rocks, plants and animals”.
Oerter also discusses the birth of the Universe in the context of the Standard Model. In my opinion this was a very cool chapter, and Oerter does a good job at exciting the reader in this chapter. Naturally the equation of everything is a little bit difficult to understand and if you don’t know what a differential equation is you can forget about it. However, understanding the equation of everything is not important. The main point of this chapter is that there is such an equation.
Chapter 11: The Edge of Physics, Chapter 12: New Dimensions
As Oerter states in chapter 11 “The standard model is by far the most successful scientific theory ever. Not only have some of its predictions been confirmed to spectacular precision, one part in 10 billion for the electron magnetic moment, but the range of application of the theory is unparalleled. From the behavior of quarks inside the proton to the behavior of galactic magnetic fields, the Standard Model works across the entire range of human experience. Accomplishing this with merely 18 adjustable parameters is an unprecedented accomplishment, making the Standard Model truly a capstone of twentieth-century science.” However, this is not the end of physics. Gravity is explained by the General Theory of Relativity but is not incorporated into the Standard Model.
There is also dark matter and dark energy which is not part of the Standard Model. The neutrinos seem to have mass; however, they are predicted to have no mass in the Standard Model. In addition, it would be nicer to have fewer adjustable parameters than 18. Is there may be a better theory? In chapter 12 Oerter is discussing Grand Unified Theories (GUT), or SO(5) and SO(10) theories as well as super string theories, and M-theories. These are theories that might be able to do everything the Standard Model can do plus what it cannot do. However, none of these theories have ever predicted anything, so unlike the Standard Model they are speculation. There is some controversy regarding these issues, and I think Oerter might have been a tiny bit biased against super string theory here. However, he still explains what super string theory is about pretty well.
Final Conclusion and Recommendation
I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand something about our world and the Universe. However, don’t expect to understand everything, it is not written so that you can. I wish Physicists would become a little better at explaining these matters to the layman using nice descriptive pictures and a little bit of math too (don’t assume math is always bad). I once read a 30 page long Swedish book on the special theory of relativity that successfully explained the kinematics, dynamics, and magnetism in relativity to your average high school kid. The Lorenz transforms, formulas for acceleration, E = mc² and magnetism were derived using simple algebra and a tiny bit of calculus at one point. That is the way these kinds of books should be written, but I have seen this only once in my life. Excluding this single example (the Swedish book), Oerter’s book is one of the best books on Physics for the layman that I have ever read.
Back cover of The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics by Robert Oerter. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.
Here are some other posts that are related to the content of this book.
This is not a super fact post but another kind of fact-oriented post. It is a book review for a book that I find interesting, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein. Yes, the book was written by Albert Einstein in 1916 and translated into English in 1920. It is written for laymen, average readers, and despite being more than 100 years old (well this reprint is from 1995) it does not feel outdated.
I should say that I wrote my review decades ago and Amazon has hidden about 900 of the oldest reviews including mine. So, you can no longer find it. Luckily, I still had it, but I cannot provide a link to it. The book comes in formats, hardcover (2024), paperback (1995), Kindle (2014), Audio (2009). I bought the paperback version.
Publisher : Independently published (July 29, 2024), ASIN : B0DBQVVJVQ, ISBN-13 : 979-8334454118, 109 pages, item weight : 7.8 ounces, dimensions : 6 x 0.47 x 9 inches, Translator : Robert W. Lawson, it costs $12.33 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Paperback – Publisher : Crown (June 6, 1995), ASIN : 0517884410, ISBN-13 : 978-0517884416, 208 pages, item weight : 8 ounces, dimensions : 5.2 x 0.5 x 8 inches, it costs $7.89 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Kindle – Publisher : Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing (February 23, 2014), ASIN : B004M8S53U, 126 pages, it costs $0.99 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Audiobook – Publisher : HighBridge, a division of Recorded Books (November 14, 2009), ASIN : B002XGLDAA, Listening Length : 2 hours and 14 minutes, it costs $12.09 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.
Amazon’s Description of Relativity by Albert Einstein
This book was originally written in German by Albert Einstein in 1916 and later translated to English by Robert W. Lawson in 1920. In Einstein’s own words, “The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics. It is an easy-to-understand collection of the ideas of one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century including the idea he is most known for, the theory of relativity.
Redesigned inside and out to have a fresh, appealing look, this new edition of a classic Crown Trade Paperback is a collection of Einstein’s own popular writings on his work and describes the meaning of his main theories in a way virtually everyone can understand.
Below is my review for Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein. First, I should mention that the book is divided into two sections, one for the Special Theory of Relativity and another for the General Theory of Relativity. In addition, there are five short appendices. The five appendices are not written for layman and require at least high school mathematics.
Relativity Explained by Einstein himself
I found it very interesting to read an explanation of the theories of relativity by the developer of those theories. However, it is important to remember that the inventors of science theories aren’t always the best ones to explain them. Isaac Newton is a prime example.
Another thing to remember is that today there are a lot of books and online graphics that use clever pedagogic techniques and visualizations to assist you in understanding these theories, and naturally this book does not contain any of that.
This book was originally written in 1916 and updated in 1920 and since then it has been reprinted/edited several times (as this book is an example of). I should say that the General Theory of Relativity had just been published so there weren’t much else out there for laymen at the time.
I’ve already read many good books on relativity, and I believe I understand special relativity pretty well, but my understanding of general relativity is partial. I did not buy this book to understand relativity. The reason I bought this book was to gain another perspective on the subject. If you just want to learn and understand relativity, I recommend Relativity Visualized by Lewis Carroll Epstein instead.
“Relativity: The Special and the General Theory” features no derivations of the formulas in relativity (except in the appendix) and no visualizations demonstrating relativistic effects and phenomena. The book is focused on the conceptual foundations of relativity and physics.
For example, what are Geometrical propositions, what does it mean to measure the length of a rod, or the time of an event, what do we mean by speed, what is simultaneity, what is the difference between what we observe and what we measure, etc? Einstein spends one and a half page explaining addition of velocities in classical-pre-relativistic kinematics (w = v + u) and what assumptions that are inherent with the approach. In that sense the book is quite philosophical, which is what I meant by “another perspective”. The book covers both the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity. However, the sections on the General Theory of Relativity are quite short and very introductory.
There are some issues with the book. In appendix 1 Einstein (I presume) derives the Lorentz transforms. However, it is not, in my opinion, the best derivation from a pedagogical standpoint and it also had typos in it. As far as I can tell the formula on page 50 is wrong unless what Einstein means with the “m” is “additional relative mass” and not actual “mass” as stated.
The book features an addition written in 1920 where he is discussing an ad hoc modification to his theory that he had previously made but it turned out to be unnecessary (related to cosmology). The language is also very old fashioned. On the other hand, this kind of stuff makes you feel as if you travel back in time to when the theories of relativity were being churned out.
I don’t recommend the book for learning the theories of relativity but overall I liked the book. It focuses very much on basic concepts and near philosophical aspects of time, space and relativity. The book presents a valuable perspective if you already understand what the theories of relativity are about.
Back cover of Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the hardback version of the book.